Mumia Abu-Jamal Case Reverberates in Senate Nomination Fight

A protestor stands next to an image of Abu-Jamal in 2012. (AFP/Getty Images)

President Barack Obama’s nomination of Debo P. Adegbile to head the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has unleashed a decades-old racial feud centered on the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal that threatens to cross partisan lines and give credence to Senate Republican worries that more controversial nominees will be confirmed since Democrats eased the process last year.

The Senate is scheduled to vote on cloture on the Adegbile nomination Monday evening. Adegbile, senior counsel for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., previously worked for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which helped commute the death sentence of Abu-Jamal, a black nationalist who was convicted and sentenced to death in 1982 for the murder of white Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner.

Senate Democrats control 55 votes in the Senate and only need 51 to clear the hurdle. But it is likely to be close, as one of their own, Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania announced Friday he would oppose the nomination, and several Democrats up for re-election in swing or conservative states might think twice about wading into the hornets’ nest that surrounds Abu-Jamal.

The case goes back to a dark period in Philadelphia history, when the MOVE group of black separatists clashed frequently with the Philadelphia political and law enforcement community. The case bounced around the appeals process for years, with the backdrop of continued violence between MOVE, which Abu-Jamal was affiliated with, and the predominantly white police force. The feud reached a nadir in 1985, when police allowed a MOVE compound in West Philadelphia to burn in a confrontation, and the conflagration went on to consume several city blocks. That incident is the topic of a recent documentary by Jason Osder, “Let the Fire Burn,” which has renewed interest in the conflict and stories behind it, such as Abu-Jamal’s case.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, said now that Democrats don’t need Republicans to cut off debate on most nominations, “More extreme judicial nominees, more extreme executive branch nominees” will be the consequence “when you don’t have to reach across the aisle.”

“Your bases begin to have a louder voice,” Graham said. “The hard left has more say when you don’t have to pick up a Republican, and that would be true on our side.”

Democrats dismissed the GOP concern, citing pushback from the Congressional Black Caucus over recent Obama judicial nominees for Georgia that they think are too conservative.

“No, not at all,” said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., when asked if Adegbile was the beginning of a trend of more extreme nominees.

“I am supporting him, and I have met him, and I have carefully examined his record,” Durbin said. “The accusations they are making against him are fundamentally and totally unfair.”

“I think the accusation is that the president is picking someone for the Division of Civil Rights who has been a leader in civil rights,” Durbin continued, adding that Republicans have “historically been troubled by … appointments [to the post] no matter who they are.”

Democrats last November used a procedural maneuver to lower the hurdle to overcome a filibuster of all but Supreme Court nominations to a simple majority from the previous 60-vote threshold.

Graham and other Republicans said one of the remaining options the minority has to block objectionable nominations is to try to deny them 51 Democratic votes.

That’s the strategy Sen. Patrick J. Toomey, R-Pa., who is leading the opposition against the Adegbile, is employing.

“That’s the only strategy that’s available to me,” Toomey said. “I think he is a very ill-considered choice, and so I hope to persuade some of my Democratic colleagues of that.”

In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed — penned with District Attorney Seth Williams, a Democrat — Toomey charged that Adegbile and the Legal Defense Fund “actively fanned the racial firestorm” while defending Abu-Jamal. They urged him to withdraw his name as he did previously three years ago when being considered for a judicial appointment.

“Appellate lawyers echoed their client’s antics in legal maneuvers that made a mockery of the justice system,” the op-ed said. “These appeals primarily functioned as a stage for Abu-Jamal’s hateful ideologies, painting him as the unjustly accused victim of a racist conspiracy.”

At his confirmation hearing last month, Adegbile denied such allegations and called Faukner’s murder “a tragic loss.”

“It is a tremendous loss to lose a civil servant, a public law enforcement officer, serving the people, and I would never personally or professionally say anything negative about that horrific loss,” Adegbile said. “My sympathy goes to his family, to the community in Philadelphia, and it would be completely contrary to my person, to make any negative comment about that particular situation.”

At the hearing, Leahy and other Democrats voiced admiration for Adegbile, who overcame poverty and homelessness to graduate from Connecticut College and New York University School of Law. “A remarkable example of the American Dream,” Leahy said.

While he is opposed by law enforcement organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police, Adegbile is buoyed by a raft of civil rights and legal groups, including the American Bar Association and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. On Friday, the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Editorial Board defended the nomination by writing: “To argue that Adegbile, one of the country’s foremost legal scholars, especially when it comes to civil rights law, should be disqualified from seeking the Justice post because he participated in Abu-Jamal’s appeals, is an affront to what it means to live in America, a country that allows every convict to exhaustively appeal a verdict, even when all the prior evidence appears to have assured his guilt.”

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are lobbying senators vigorously on Adegbile’s behalf.

“The Congressional Black Caucus … [is] trying to lobby any and all senators we can to take this vote in the affirmative,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II, D-Mo. “There is no value in continuing to split the country.”

CBC Chairwoman Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, invoked another infamous racial political wedge issue in the current fight.

“It is like a Willie Horton situation,” Fudge said of the infamous 1988 presidential campaign ad. “I think it is patently unfair. I think they have spun it in a way that would demonize Debo, when in fact he has a stellar record and he has never done anything that should prevent him from being in this position.”

The ad portrayed Massachusetts governor and presidential candidate Michael Dukakis as soft on crime, citing the case of Horton, a convicted murderer who utilized a prison furlough program in Massachusetts. The ad is regarded as classic race-baiting, because Horton was black.

The Department of Justice civil rights division could hardly get any more radically left. Take a look at what they imposed on the U of Missouri, and proposed as a model for all campuses–a “speech code” so offensive that the First Amendment was emasculated. I’d love to see someone who is NOT an academic take that post–someone who has worked successfully in the real world. That said, the fact that Pennsylvania Democrats oppose the nomination should be a signal.

Attila

Good.
Let Democratic Senators, especially those facing re-election later this year, go on record voting for a supporter of cop-killer Jamal.

sadatoni

Makes for a good campaign ad by their opposition.

dccph

Mumia is innocent and has worldwide support as a political prisoner and victim of an unfair criminal justice system. Adegbile should be proud of the role he played in commuting Mumia’s unjust death sentence, if only he could have been freed altogether.

Don

Let’s dispense with your liberal propaganda and stick to the hard facts instead, shall we? Here are the hard facts:

“Mumia Abu-Jamal (born Wesley Cook on April 24, 1954) is an American radical convicted for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner.”
What part of that factual statement is it which you fail to grasp? Is it the part about “convicted” or is it the part about “murder of Philadelphia POLICE OFFICER Daniel Faulkner”?

dccph

Your faith in the US justice system is touching, but I might just point out to you another hard fact:

That is 245 innocent people who were wrongly convicted of crimes such as murder and rape and released from prison on the basis of DNA evidence.

I would submit to you that there are innocent people who remain in prison despite the fact that they were convicted of a crime, and Mumia Abu-Jamal is one of them.

Don

Which country’s justice system is it in which you have faith? Do tell us!

Obviously, you are in need of more hard facts! The conviction of your hero, Mumia, was upheld twice by the U. S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, once by the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled that all claims of new evidence put on his behalf did not warrant conducting a retrial. So while Mumia was spared the death penalty, his murder conviction has been upheld four times by three courts! That makes him guilty, guilty, guilty and guilty! He did, in fact, murder a police officer in cold blood, was convicted for it and even the U. S. Supreme Court says that his conviction is valid! You’re out of luck and so is Mumia!

As regards our justice system, I don’t know any place else in the world where a guy like Mumia would have his case heard four times in three courts, including the U. S. Supreme Court!

As regards DNA evidence, here’s the rest of the story:

“A 1997 MURDER IN KING COUNTY IS SOLVED when evidence from the scene matches the DNA of a sex offender convicted in 1986. A 1993 rape in Arizona is solved when evidence matches the DNA of a man convicted of assault in Washington in 1995.”

“DNA from a Tacoma rape matches DNA from a rape in Phoenix, and both samples match the DNA of a felon convicted in Arizona. Evidence from a rape in Spokane matches to a felon convicted of robbery last year.”

“These and other cases could not be solved using traditional investigative methods. But they have been solved in the past year, using new technology to match evidence samples from unsolved cases against DNA databanks maintained by the State Patrol Crime Laboratory and the FBI.”

Is it any surprise that after putting so much effort into railroading Mumia onto death row, that the legal system would refuse to grant him a new trial based on new evidence? I suggest you read Amnesty International’s report on his case for a good sense of just how unfair his treatment has been and how his original trial failed to meet the basic minimum requirements for international standards of fair trials. The legal system is not going to just admit to its own corruption and say alright here you go, here is a new trial in which you are allowed to mount a full defense with all the exonerating evidence that we suppressed in your original trial.

How naïve are you?

The rest of your comment is too incoherent to respond to. I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make about DNA, but my suspicion is that your thinking is a bit muddled on the subject, perhaps an unfortunate side effect of too much Fox News.

And BTW, I am not a Democrat, and am not sure what ever gave you that idea. In my view, Democrats are the biggest hypocrites in the world, with the possible exception of Republicans. The two-party system is rotten to the core and it’s high time for real democracy in the USA, in my humble opinion.

dwpittelli

Amnesty International is always opposed to the death penalty, and has not declared that Mumia is innocent:

“Amnesty International can take no position on the guilt or innocence of Mumia Abu-Jamal…. However, the organization is concerned that political statements attributed to him as a teenager were improperly used by the prosecution in its efforts to obtain a death sentence against him.”

dccph

They have raised numerous concerns about the fairness of his initial trial and his treatment in the appeals process, which was my point. I know that they have not issued statements about his innocence, their position has long been however that he deserves a new trial, which he has been denied.

dwpittelli

When you insist on acting as your own lawyer, as Mumia did, you put the judge in a difficult position where it may be impossible to guarantee both your right to the counsel of your choice (Mumia himself, and in this case, also another nonlawyer) and your right to competent counsel.

Don

Amnesty International, who you are exceedingly fond of referring to, has also defended Islamic jihad:

“Amnesty International Boss Endorses “Jihad in self-defence””

“Apr 2, 2010″

“Amnesty International (AI) Secretary-General Claudio Cordone has come under fire for defending jihad when it occurs in “self-defence” – a position many other human rights advocates believe “would gravely undermine the future of the human rights movement.””

In an interview with Frontpage Mag, Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a columnist for National Review, had this to say about Amnesty International Secretary General Claudio Cordone’s defense of jihad:

“In the letter, Cordone states AI’s position outright: advocacy of “jihad in self defense” is not antithetical to human rights. Of course, that is absurd. Islamists reserve unto themselves the right to determine when Islam is, as they put it, “under siege,” and when, therefore, forcible jihad is justified in “self-defense.” As we’ve seen too many times to count (including throughout the Taliban’s reign in Afghanistan), Islamists have a very low threshold for what constitutes an “attack” on Islam. The “self-defense” canard, as Robert Spencer has demonstrated repeatedly, is just camouflage for what is a very aggressive offensive jihad campaign, involving both force and stealth. All this is plainly of no concern to AI — again, for AI, only actions in America’s self-defense are worthy of condemnation.”

Obviously you are in need of assistance in organizing your thoughts. We’ll provide you with some rationality.
First, your comment is entirely disingenuous in that you employ a classic liberal tactic in seeking to make a false case. Specifically, you make a statement which assumes as fact something which is not fact. Mumia was not “railroaded onto death row”. He was given due legal process and, in fact, it is the very legal system for which you have such disdain which got him off of death row! If our legal system is so bad and dysfunctional then it must be equally bad and dysfunctional when it reverses a death penalty as when it applies one. Employing a double standard is the stock in trade of liberals and your logically inconsistent argument is no exception. Next, let’s have a look at what you are referring to when you use the term “legal system”.
Mumia’s case was reviewed by not one but three courts; two federal and one state. That included the Supreme Court of The United States. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania found that evidence presented on Mumia’s behalf did not warrant a retrial. Neither of the federal courts involved with the case, the U. S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of The United States, took exception to the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in denying a retrial. You, however, know better than all three of those courts! We should simply make you Supreme Judge and Jury of The United States of America and let you decide all legal cases. Would that work for you?
What you are asking us to believe is that all of the judges on all of those courts, who heard the arguments and the evidence in detail, are wrong and that you are right. Furthermore, you are asking us to believe that the jury was wrong as well in rendering it’s verdict, after hearing all of the arguments and all of the evidence in detail, but that you, sitting at home on your computer, are right and know better. We have a legal system precisely to prevent the implementation of the force of law by personal whim as you are seeking to do.
The rest of your comment is too incoherent to respond to. The opinions of Amnesty International are no more relevant to the codified legal process than are the opinions of the Communist Party USA.
Yes, you are a liberal Democrat in that, no matter your party affiliation or lack thereof, you adhere to the position of liberal Democrats on the supremely important and central issue of legal justice. The article which you have chosen to comment on is about the appointment, by liberal Democrat B. Hussein Obama, of Adegbile to head the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Apparently you even have difficulty remembering where you are, let alone mounting a cogent and coherent argument.

dccph

By your very logic, you are also a liberal Democrat because the article which you have chosen to comment on is about the appointment, by liberal Democrat B. Hussein Obama, of Adegbile to head the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

Is that not exactly what you said? That I am a liberal Democrat because I commented on this article? Wouldn’t the exact same “logic” apply to you?

As perhaps now you can see, your logic makes no sense — neither when it comes to your allusions as to my political affiliations, nor to your general argumentation regarding the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal.

By the way, Mumia spent 30 years on death row before his sentence was commuted. Is that what you call justice? If you were to spend three decades in prison only to be finally exonerated for a crime you didn’t commit, would you say that the system had worked?

That’s a rhetorical question by the way, so don’t feel compelled to answer. I’d be more than happy to wish you a nice life and leave this pointless conversation behind me.

Don

No, that is not what I wrote and that is not my logic. That is your liberal Democrat misinterpretation of what I wrote and you illogic. Don’t worry, I’ll help you.

This is what I wrote, and what is a matter of written record, about why you are, in fact, a liberal Democrat: “Yes, you are a liberal Democrat in that, no matter your party affiliation or lack thereof, you adhere to the position of liberal Democrats on the supremely important and central issue of legal justice.” So it’s the position you take, which is a liberal Democrat position, which makes you a liberal Democrat. I did not write that it was the nature of the article you were commenting on which makes you a liberal Democrat. I know that these distinctions are difficult for a disingenuous liberal mind to grasp but do make an effort.

You wrote: “By the way, Mumia spent 30 years on death row before his sentence was commuted. Is that what you call justice?” Absolutely! That is what I call justice! Why? First, because Mumia had due process involving two federal courts, including the Supreme Court of The United States, and one state court. Secondly, because he still, to this day, is a convicted murderer. Finally, his original sentence of death, handed down at his first trial in July 1982, was commuted to life imprisonment without parole in 2012. So he is and was destined to, at minimum, spend his life behind bars whether on death row or not.

Now this statement by you is simply too funny! “If you were to spend three decades in prison only to be finally exonerated for a crime you didn’t commit, would you say that the system had worked?” That is pure propaganda which is fantasy not based at all on fact.
First, Mumia was never “exonerated” and is currently serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. His murder conviction and sentence stand. So your statement is quite simply factually in error.
Secondly, the jury, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the U. S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of The United States all say that Mumia is, as a matter of legal record, guilty of murder, your liberal propaganda notwithstanding. So, once again, your propaganda statement is factually in error.
Finally, the fact that someone who murdered a police officer in the line of duty had his death sentence commuted to life imprisonment shows how magnanimous our system is.
By the way, you never told us which country’s justice system you prefer to ours. Please enlighten us as to which nation’s justice system you hold above ours.
Well, of course you want to leave this conversation behind because, like all liberals, you can’t mount a fact-based argument as the facts aren’t on your side. All you have are subjective opinions and propaganda which completely ignore the legal record. But liberals like you never muddy an issue with facts.

dccph

Your shallowness and disingenuousness surprise me — I really didn’t expect you to stoop this low. I can see that I am not exactly dealing with an intellectual giant here, first of all because you think that throwing around epithets like “liberal Democrat” wins you some points, and secondly because in your feeble mind, there seems to be only two kinds of people: right-thinking people like you, and the dreaded “liberal Democrat” like me. (I can assure you, not that it matters, that I am not in fact a liberal Democrat.) Personally, I don’t care what your political affiliation is.

I never said Mumia was exonerated, and of course I know that he was not. It’s funny because you actually quote me a few lines above that saying “Mumia spent 30 years on death row before his sentence was commuted,” which tells you right there that I was not under the impression that he was exonerated. We were talking about two different things — Mumia’s case and the hundreds of DNA exonerations over the years.

I do hope though that some day you are thrown into prison for a crime you didn’t commit and lose several decades of your life during the appeals process. Hopefully your faith in the legal system is still intact at the end of it all.

Don

dccph wrote: “I never said Mumia was exonerated…” It would appear that you are unable to stick to the facts, even if they are your own words and even if they are part of a written record for all readers of this forum to see. Here is a verbatim quote of your written words above:

“By the way, Mumia spent 30 years on death row before his sentence was commuted. Is that what you call justice? If you were to spend three decades in prison only to be finally exonerated for a crime you didn’t commit, would you say that the system had worked?”

If you weren’t talking about Mumia being “exonerated” after three decades in prison, then who, pray tell, were you talking about?

dccph wrote: “I do hope though that some day you are thrown into prison for a crime you didn’t commit and lose several decades of your life during the appeals process.” Thank you so much for the kind wishes! Of course the difference between Mumia and I would be that Mumia did, in fact, commit the crime of murder. But of course, you already know that Mumia committed the crime of murder, don’t you.

dccph

Congratulations on your ability to parse words and take comments out of context. You might have a future as a Philadelphia prosecutor.

Don

I see that what we need here is some education, something in which you are obviously lacking!
Quoting an entire paragraph verbatim isn’t taking comments out of context. It is leaving your comments entirely in context just as you wrote them. The problem is with the content of your comments and not with the fact that they were quoted verbatim.
Philadelphia is the home of Independence Hall where the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution were debated and adopted. I’m sure that’s why a liberal like you has disdain for Philadelphia.
Which country is it whose legal system you think is superior to that of The United States of America? If our system is as bad as you claim, there must be some country which you think has a better system. Which country would that be?

dccph

We could go back and forth for days on this, but honestly I have better ways to spend my time. I would just like to clarify two points: I am not a liberal Democrat and I never said (or believed) that Mumia Abu Jamal was exonerated. Instead what I said was that his sentence was commuted, and then made a subsequent point about how you might feel about being in prison for decades and then being exonerated (attempting to draw a parallel with a previous and related comment I had made about the hundreds of DNA exonerations over the past several years). The obvious point I was making was regarding the fallibility of the justice system, but apparently this was over your head, and all you could think to do is parse my words and harp over a factual mistake that I never made.

There I’ve gone again, wasted another ten minutes of my life arguing with you. I’m not even going to take your bait about which country might have a better legal system, such an obvious red herring …

Free Mumia.

Don

If you did, in fact, have better ways to spend your time you wouldn’t be posting here.
Your comments and my comments are a matter of written record and speak for themselves. Your interpretation is superfluous.
Mumia is a convicted murderer sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He murdered a police officer in the line of duty. Mumia is a dangerous animal who needs to be caged like a dangerous animal for the protection of the public, including you.
Keep Mumia behind bars for the rest of his life. He’ll be freed when he dies of natural causes. That is a better fate than he deserves.

beckdella

There is no disputing this….abu-jamal himself admits to killing the man….so no, he is not one of them who is innocent and behind bars.

ronchris

Wesley Cook (mumia’s real name) is a foul beast who should be destroyed. There’s nothing remotely political about his incarceration.

The fact that Adegbile was on leahy’s staff is a disgrace. But of course he was a brother to the traitor leahy.

dwpittelli

Mumia was found on the ground beside Falukner. Mumia was wearing a holster. Mumia’s Charter Arms revolver, with all 5 rounds shot, was on the ground next to him. The bullets in Faulkner came from Mumia’s revolver. Three witnesses identified Mumia as the shooter. His own brother, who was there (pulled over by Faulkner) refused to testify. In short, Mumia Abu-Jamal is one of the left’s most stupid causes celebres in history.

Blammm

You forgot the part where Mumia confessed to the murder at the hospital and said that he hoped Faulkner dies.

rc

In fact, it is stated by witness at the hospital treating Mumia, he shouted “l shot the motherf****r, let him die”, several times, loudly, as they tried to help him.

Don

While liberal hearts are bleeding about “unfair” and “unjust”, how “fair” and “just” is this move by the Democrat controlled Senate?

“Maureen Faulkner Not Allowed to Speak at Senate Hearing for Murderer’s Lawyer”

“The wife of a brutally murdered police officer was denied the right to speak out in a Senate committee hearing against the nomination of the lawyer who defended her husband’s murderer to the Department of Justice.”

What are Senate liberal Democrats so afraid of that they won’t permit the U. S. citizen spouse of a murdered police officer to testify before Congress?

coffeeHouse1982

Not to be mistaken with a rigid laissez-faire approach, the liberty school insists upon working to unleash the proven forces of competition.

Mark Uss

Those who oppose the spontaneous nature of liberty and prosperity attempt to discredit cultural evolution because it conflicts with their fatally conceited confidence in mankind’s limited intellect.

Mike Clark

Let’s see how many liberals in red states step forward knowing there days in office will be numbered.

dwpittelli

In Pennsylvania, sure, it looks like voting for confirmation would be political suicide. But outside the state, how many Republicans would have the cojones to attack on this issue, and how many voters would notice and care?

ShadrachSmith

Are you sure the Koch brothers can’t gin up an individually tailored ad about Landrieu’s vote on the Adegbile nomination? Could that vote be the straw that breaks her red-state support?

The nuclear option appears to have a downside for Democrats after all :-)

Amy J. Train

Anyone who lived in or around Philadelphia at the time of the murder or since then knows that Abu Jamal killed a police officer in cold blood…He didn’t just shoot him once, he shot him 5 times, 3 when he was already on the ground. Anyone who championed for his freedom is unfit to serve in any level of our government. Bob Casey knows this, and as such, of course he won’t vote for him.

Plinytherecent

“The feud reached a nadir in 1985, when police allowed a MOVE compound in West Philadelphia to burn in a confrontation, and the conflagration went on to consume several city blocks.” That is a gross distortion. Firefighters who were sent in to extinguish the fire were shot at by MOVE members inside the house. It was quite reasonable for the fire teams to be held back to keep them from being murdered. The fire was exacerbated by the flammable materials (for no apparent reason other than arson) being stored in the MOVE house.

SicSemperTyrannis

When the police arrived, other than of course Faulkner, who Abu Jamal murdered, there were two people on the scene. Jamal, and his brother. And his brother’s comments were “I didn’t have anything to do with this”. And he refused to testify on his brother’s behalf at the trial. This guy is 100%, not a shred of doubt, guilty. The claims of his innocence are the the most outlandish garbage I have ever seen. Anyone who defended him in court, or in public, is not fit to hold office or serve in the government in any capacity whatsoever. They disgust me.

freestateyank

The Philly FD had no choice, but to let the fire burn. The MOVE idiots SHOT at them every time they approached the blaze to extinguish it.

PS- the doubts about this candidate go well beyond this one case. Plenty of others, including one he took to SCOTUS and was defeated 9-0.

Adegbile shows once again the surest way to a Leftist’s heart is by killing a cop.

islanchief

Graham’s critcism that he takes only fifty votes to pass a nominee and therefore it gives the base of a particular party extraordinary power is hypocrisy. The forty-one votes necessary for a filibuster gives the exact same power with only forty votes necessary.
I truly do not know enough about htis nominee to either concur or disagree with the vote. He shouldn’t be exempted for providing a legal defense for anyone. Especially a black man in Philly in those times.

Roll Call Video Picks

About #WGDB

Niels Lesniewski has covered the Senate for CQ Roll Call since January 2010, and more recently as a staff writer and resident procedure guru for Roll Call. Niels holds degrees in both government and theater but sometimes can't tell the difference between the two. @nielslesniewski